Law Times

Page 10 September 1, 2014 • Law Times www.lawtimesnews.com FOCUS Privacy class actions on the rise Evans not the only case to move forward in court By arshy mann Law Times ith the certifica- tion of Evans v. e Bank of Nova Scotia, the newly introduced tort of intrusion upon seclusion has become another weapon in the arsenal for the class action plaintiffs' bar. But while Evans has gotten the lion's share of attention, other de- velopments in privacy law are also portending an increase in privacy class actions. e tort of intrusion upon se- clusion emerged in Ontario in Jones v. Tsige, a 2012 case involving a bank employee who accessed a colleague's personal information for her own purposes. In that decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal reviewed the American Law Institute's Restate- ment of the Law Second, Torts from 2010. It included four torts related to privacy breaches. e Ontario judges believed the tort of intru- sion upon seclusion could apply to the case and found Ontario com- mon law should recognize it. "A right of action for intrusion upon seclusion should be recog- nized in Ontario," wrote Justice Robert Sharpe. "e case law supports the ex- istence of such a cause of action." e court outlines three key features of the tort: the alleged conduct must be intentional and reckless; the defendant must have unlawfully invaded the plaintiff 's privacy; and the inva- sion must be offensive, humiliat- ing or anguishing. Roland Hung, an associate with McCarthy Tétrault LLP, says that when the tort first emerged, he expected the courts to limit its use. "Many lawyers in discussing that case were thinking the courts are probably going to try to limit this case to its own facts," he says. "But actually now that it's been almost three years aer, it would appear that the courts have not limited that case to its own facts and have broadened and widened this case." He pointed to Hopkins v. Kay, a case from January of this year, as an example. "I am not satisfied from a review of Jones that it should be, as suggested by counsel for the Hospital, restricted to the facts of that case," wrote Superior Court Justice Mark Edwards. "Rather, I am of the view that the Court of Appeal in Jones has determined that the common law right to proceed with a claim, based on the tort of breach of privacy, as alleged in the plaintiff 's statement of claim is a claim that should be allowed to proceed." Federal Court Justice Jocelyne Gagné relied on this reasoning to determine that intrusion upon seclusion was a common question in Condon v. Canada, a case certi- fied three months before Evans. Condon relates to the loss of a hard drive from Human Re- sources and Skills Development Canada containing student loan data on 583,000 people. e data included names, birth dates, ad- dresses, the balance of student loans, and even social insurance numbers. To this day, no one knows where the hard drive ended up, but there hasn't been any evi- dence someone used it for ne- farious purposes. Molly Reynolds, a litigator with Torys LLP, says that when she heard about the lost hard drive, she checked to see if the incident had affected her student loans. "And mine were on there," she says. According to Reynolds, Con- don differs from Evans because while the latter case deals more with the vicarious liability of the employer, Condon focuses more on the issue of recklessness. "e question is whether the employee was reckless or other- wise negligent in having lost the USB key in the first place," she says. e fact that it's not clear what happened to the hard drive or whether anyone else had ever ac- cessed the private information further complicates the case. "It was a breach; we just don't know if there were any conse- quences or any harm stemming from the breach," says Reynolds. "But what's interesting about the damages issue here is that you can't necessarily identify whether anybody has been the victim of identity the and they're going to have a struggle, I think, with causation." Reynolds says that even if the plaintiffs are unable to prove harm, the judge could still award nominal damages to them, as happened in Jones and numer- ous cases dealing with the Per- sonal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act in the federal courts. "When you have a class as big as 500,000 class members, $5,000 in nominal damages times 500,000 or 600,000 could actually be a pretty hey damage award against the government," she says. Ontario is the only province so far that has adopted the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. In Dem- cak v. Vo, the Supreme Court of British Columbia reaffirmed that no common law privacy tort ex- ists in that province. Instead, Brit- ish Columbia has a statutory rem- edy for breach of privacy under that province's privacy legislation. Hung expects Alberta to veer closer to British Columbia than Ontario since that province, un- like Ontario, also has provincial privacy legislation. "Of course, it's not the same test as the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, but nonetheless there is a remedy for privacy breaches," he says. Despite the fact that British Columbia doesn't have a com- mon law privacy tort, Hung says class actions stemming from pri- vacy breaches are likely to become more numerous even there. He points to Douez v. Face- book Inc., a British Columbia- based class action certified in May against Facebook for alleged privacy breaches. "Despite the fact that the B.C. courts have indicated they're not going to adopt the Jones intrusion-upon-seclusion tort, they still allowed the certification of a privacy violation," he says. "So they're basically following their statutory regime instead of following a common law tort." And if judges decide to adopt any of the other American pri- vacy torts, there may be further potential for the expansion of privacy class actions. "at is one thing that com- mentators are expecting to see happen, depending on the facts of future cases, that we may con- tinue to borrow and import the other three U.S. privacy torts," says Reynolds. ose torts are the public dis- closure of embarrassing private facts, publicity that places a person in a false light, and appropriation of a person's name or likeness. Reynolds, however, says cases that fall under the second tort could be actionable under defa- mation and libel laws while those involving the third tort may fall under copyright protections. Both Hung and Reynolds say that even without new legal de- velopments, because of the vast quantities of data now stored on the computers of companies and government agencies, an in- crease in privacy class actions is almost inevitable. Hung says he has noticed that clients, especially the big banks and retailers, have become in- creasingly concerned about liabil- ity in the case of a privacy breach. "e potential risk that they might be sued, whether through class action or by just a com- mencement of a claim by one of the individuals that suffered iden- tity the, is quite real," he says. Reynolds thinks these cases will send a message to companies and governments that store large amounts of personal data. "I think these kinds of cases, even if they don't get as far as tri- als and decisions and damage awards, will be sending a mes- sage internally at a lot of large institutions to make sure they're minimizing employees' access to records that they don't need for the purposes of their job and probably supplementing their ability to monitor whether em- ployees are misusing their inter- nal systems," she says. LT CANADA LAW BOOK ® Available risk-free for 30 days Order online: www.carswell.com Call Toll-Free: 1-800-387-5164 In Toronto: 416-609-3800 You owe it to yourself and your clients to get a copy of The Law of Subdivision Control in Ontario, Third Edition by Sidney Troister. Real estate lawyers trust this classic as the authority on Section 50 of the Planning Act. Previous editions have been cited in court. If you aren't consulting this book at the beginning of every real estate transaction, you're starting at a disadvantage. Get clear answers to the important real estate law questions • Is "once a consent always a consent" always true? • Can you use trusts to get around the Planning Act? • How do you avoid merger? • Does taking title as tenants-in-common make a difference to merger? • How far back do you have to search abutting lands? • Is the whole Property Identification Number (PIN) a separate property for Planning Act purposes? • How do you obtain consents for severances? • What is the process for validation of title? • When can you sign the Planning Act statements? • How do you take title to property when your client owns the property next door? Order # 804514-65203 $155 Hardcover 464 pages January 2011 978-0-88804-514-0 Shipping and handling are extra. Price(s) subject to change without notice and subject to applicable taxes. 00221MW-A44945 Real Estate Lawyers – Do you worry about the Planning Act? W The rise of privacy class actions will send a message about the need to better protect people's information, says Molly Reynolds.

• Cover